Mortgages Come at a Cost . . .Basis is Cost”

 The cost basis in the asset is not the house: Your home is the collateral you’re granted a security interest to a note holder upon recording confirmation. The basis in the asset is the face value of the note – got It?

At settlement you allowed the lender its encumbrance that provides the beneficiary an interest in the estates title.  Bare and legal is presumptive and not enforceable in advance of a default.

If you believe the presumption you granted title to a lender in advance of a default then lose your home and go peacefully. Pretender lender and Robo the Hobo, Pretender Lender and ….. Let it go!

Look, law makers are woefully incorrect to believe title is granted in a non judicial state. If that were the case —EVERY LOAN at originated would trigger a taxable event. Get back to basics in a defense if you’re to succeed.   Unfortunately, Now I believe every mortgage loan originated in a non judicial jurisdiction for “POS” power of sale shall invoke a tax payer’s right to record the loan origination as a taxable event. The IRC is convinced these deal structures and transactions constitute a lease and common securities vehicle that survives state law as a sale lease back and REPO.

Washington, Oregon California Arizona and Rhode Island are a few examples of this traditionally unfriendly jurisdiction for a lender to recover by under a Purchase and Sale lease back or what we called a reverse REPO.

 The REPO feature ignites a garden variety of restraints the court has long held a combatant   to a common law creed of Life Liberty and the pursuit of a lenders right to ALWAYS be repaid. Therein is an obvious counter claims for inalienable rights of the debtor and structure which clearly gives merit for avoiding anything binding if its real intent was executory and shown made as a conditional sale.

It is puzzling to see the securities registration is still undecipherable or just too hard to understand. Lawyers and the courts are ….I mean …wow…it’s not that hard to grasp guys. If applied to some simple principals and with least effort for understanding…you really can prevail.


No less the court’s have struggled with and through the entire gambit of claims; from the pejorative to well pleaded controversy.  The plaintiff household shares in common the same fate – the common law courts discretion over institutional constructive trust and surrendering to a 12(b) 6 to dismiss. Herein it is household’s relentless desire to assert the most inaccurate and artificial, subjective and entirely misleading claims.  Take this to heart; it’s not the oppositions fault either. The capital markets and overall sub prime sector are really good at working into structure layer upon layer of fortified defenses. Over the last 10 they have ripened into a near impermeable defense.


Now, can someone like the author really bring down Mers.Corp. . . . with what is not known?  …Well …no; Of course not !

 (we shall see)

FACT #1: The foreclosure crisis is NOT close to being over

Some GOOD NATURED guy named Mandelman  asserts –  FACT #1: The foreclosure crisis is NOT close to being over, in fact, the worst is yet to come.

Here’s your problem with soothsayers. First , Frank Dodd kicks in after the first of year making the masquerade more difficult. Then you have the Obama debt forgiveness coming to an end in 2012. Now the stakes just got higher. For the most part the government gave themselves a four-year horizon to manage the worst of the worst. Origination from 2004-2005 in 2009 , 2005 in 2010 and 2006 in 2011-12. These are the households that are stung by payment shock and not necessarily hardship . The government aid, for what it is worth, was directed towards  payment shock and rate hike adjustments.  Hardship will be viewed at this late stage as “other than” a Bank Fed problem as for granting assistance.

With all this going on its inevitable that an executive order is in store calling for preemptive STRIKE. In other words anything to halt all this failed consumer litigation and to restore ….well, what ever and who ever knows what.

There is more than meets the eye in a foreclosure defense. . .   

so open them and see!




Failure to obtain the adequate insurance and registrants risk mitigation “coverage” is causal to the collapse of the private label securities markets. Bad loans will hurt earnings and eventually drive a pool into a liquidated short sale as a distressed asset. Bad loans that exceed the markets demand for a robust condition are an indication of the secondary having exceeded its tolerance for quality and risk mitigation.

Mortgages originated under secondary market schemes involving the lender and a third party, counter party or multiple third parties to counter party transfers. The lender originating the mortgage is the befitting party debited the ABA wire credited into the borrower settlement. Under UCC Article 9 possession of collateral is sufficient to perfect and no statutory requirements’ exist to record assignments. Transferring a loan to honor a request for payoff is not all that uncommon and should be free of restraint, that is, regardless of market conditions. Lenders cannot harbor a payoff demand due to a poorly timed market. The courts developed rule for perpetuity, adhesion and executory agreements circa seventeenth century. This so restrict any power to control perpetually the ownership and possession of his or her property and to ensure the transfer-ability of property. So consider now the dilemma with recording transfers absent of any recorded assignment. It appears to be an overrated argument – attacking the lack of an early assignment. The required recording for transfer is staunchly avoided early on and serendipitous when related parties transfer among themselves in a timely foreclosure. One can see the conveniences in using a nominee Mers Corp for the benefit of the party’s agreement and understanding common to their shared interests.   Any requirement for transfer to future successor that mandates an arm’s length third party purchaser is where a problem arises.  
The problematic issue occurs where a future transfer and sale of a mortgage is conditioned to a “final sale” and subsequent recorded assignment. Therein the demand imposes a condition for sale; albeit not one in the same with a conditional sale. A sale to a third party purchaser of value conditioned by timing in a down market is a possible restraint on alienation.  
Claims the lender broke a binding contract subject to breach are made in claims for any executory provisions here a lack of missing “capacity” precludes enforcement. Economic and legal capacity is conditional should it emerge a precedent for satisfaction.
A demand is understood to have full effect of the agreement that it wished to impart from, again with no restraints and shall not cause the contract to be viewed as burdensome or unduly biased subject to a condition and hence fall under an executory contract.If such enforcement has the effect of hindering or circumventing a timely payoff request the holder lacking capacity at that time and place the demand was served cannot avoid the some notice or least disclosure for assets impairment.Defendants’ are conducting a sale that under statue must record a bonefide transfer to a third party purchaser of value. In doing so a variety of issues arise that cites foreclosure procedures are burden by restraints for which a variety of  errors and omissions claims and deceptive practices argument subject the foreclosing trustee “counsel” to a slew liabilities.

compliance with anti-money laundering

HSBC Holdings PLC announced that it has reached agreement with United States authorities in relation to investigations regarding inadequate compliance with anti-money laundering and sanctions laws. This includes a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the US Department of Justice. HSBC has also reached agreement to achieve a global resolution with all other US government agencies that have investigated HSBC’s past conduct related to these issues and anticipates finalising an undertaking with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority shortly. Under these agreements, HSBC will make payments totaling USD1.921 billion, continue to cooperate fully with regulatory and law enforcement authorities, and take further action to strengthen compliance policies and procedures. Over the five-year term of the agreement with the Department of Justice, an independent monitor will evaluate HSBC’s progress in fully implementing these and other measures it recommends, and will produce regular assessments of the effectiveness of HSBC’s compliance function. 

(Reuters) – Bank of America Corp over allegations they misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 A U.S. judge on Monday ruled in favor of a federal regulator wishing to use statistical sampling in its lawsuits against big banks including Credit Suisse Group AG and Bank of America Corp over allegations they misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into purchasing billions of dollars of risky mortgage debt. The lawsuits accuse the banks of misrepresenting the quality of the loans underlying the securities and violating U.S. securities laws.

 The banks have denied the regulator’s allegations and argued they should be dismissed. Among the arguments by the defendants is a contention that the lawsuits were filed after the statute of limitations had expired. As some of the cases proceed to trial, FHFA has sought an easier way to determine whether the mortgages in question conformed to proper lending standards. Instead, FHFA proposed a method for sampling those loans, which it said would yield a clear analysis of potential liability without having to evaluate each loan individually. The defendants disputed FHFA’s methodology and questioned its reliability. But Cote’s ruling clears the way for FHFA to employ its sampling method as it prepares for trial in the cases, the first of which is scheduled to begin in January 2014.

 The lawsuits allege impairment concerning the quality of the loans underlying the securities that do in fact violate U.S. securities laws. The consumers are yet to mount a campaign against banks for claims that carryover to regulator’s allegations concerning Securities and Exchange Commissions violations of domestic and foreign securities trading laws.

 What lacks among the arguments brought by the household in claims are arguments contending the agencies negligence and joint culpability with the defendants they are suing. These lawsuits filed by agencies are proof of the lack of agency understanding essential to protecting the public from these types of harm brought to society and community as well as each homeowner. The obligations of the parties, “Seller”, “Depositors” and registrants “are substantially unperformed whereas they fail. When they fail the entire effort implodes and consolidation must take place along with a mandatory liquidation of all loans that meet the sampling criteria used to screen good from bad borrower loans.


Where either party cannot complete performance for which a consumer relied upon in a bargain, the timeing of the cessation of activities liquidation of assets by a receiver would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other. This is the standoff taking place amongst participating parties in the mortgage backed securities arena. The mounting interparty and counter party litigation is clearly an indication of the mis-joinder present in so many lawsuits that is never revealed in claims brought by and through plaintiff’s counsel.  


The U.S. Supreme Court defined the term as a contract in which “”performance is due to some extent on both sides” N.L.R.B. v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513 (1984). In the Ninth Circuit, a contract is executory if the obligations of both parties “are so far unperformed that the failure of either party to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other”

 In Re Frontier Properties, Inc., 979 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1992). Real property and equipment leases are perhaps the most common forms of executory contract. The lessor has a duty to provide future possession of the property and the debtor/lessee has a duty to make the future payments. Other examples might include an insurance policy, an escrow for the sale of land, a license agreement or a joint venture. Conversely, some contracts that appear to be executory, such as an installment sales contract, may already be so fully performed by the non-debtor that they are no longer executory. These contracts are often treated as unsecured claims or “disguised” security agreements subject to the applicable lien perfection rules.

for inherently deceptive, high risk, poor performing loans that are impaired at that time the consumer falls behind or defaults. The historical default is the only means of quantifying damages and sampling indicates the continuance for the borrower defaulting.



I am engaged as independent accounting analyst for the above referenced file and subject property tax payer. This correspondence is purely informational and not intended to represent a legal basis, modification request, securities audit, nor substitute for an attorney’s opinion. This correspondence is merely to ask you to assist my efforts for tax payers concerns and IRC rules for anticipated mortgage obligations purported to be in default.My concern is for the 1099 the client will receive at the culmination of the sale handled by you and your office. The sale I believe will result in an abandonment of claims and hence trigger the 1099A or 1099C 

First, your office has asserted it is representing the current beneficiary’s interest in the subject collateral and defaulted mortgage. The claims by your client are purporting to be a lender, are not in line with whom issues the 1099 for income attributed to the post foreclosure.This is peculiar as your attributing the entire weight of the foreclosure on the lenders successors a New York Statutory Trust under a securities trust administrator. By your own admission the consumer household was told to contact the lender – who you listed as INDX Mortgage Loan trust 2006-AR27.


The lender is neither a mortgage lender nor servicing agent. The lender here is an indentures trustee operating solely in that capacity as securities and investment funds administrator.You may be forewarned prior to sale that the trustor shown on deed had never elected nor implied or was properly disclosed a willingness to abandon his fee simple rights to the estate identified herein and above.My professional opinion is held under CA CC 2924 et seq. Herein I can link the subterfuge for devisees deployed during a 12 month cooling off period subsequent to tracking a five year bond or debenture listed in the certain pooling and servicing agreements your office references. The debtor is tracking to a five year bond as of date of execution for the note and adjusted for the recording of the deed of trust. The bond or 12 month conversion of assets under GAAP has your office pulling the trigger on a foreclosure the day the fill meets its year seven anniversary. 

If correct, you agree you’re firm will be held accountable for  dual tracking these bond and securities offerings to a foreclosures statutory time frame in accordance with the state of California. I am a lay person making a professional opinion so your counsel and Trustor’s counsel may elect to review these facts in accordance with the claims. 

Herein the situation will cause the Notices of Default and Notices of Sale to have been strategically backdated and calculated in advance of the bonds or assets release date. Something of this nature is not within the framework of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. The liabilities of the FDIC bank member appear transferred, as in sold and left to the holdings pledged on account with the Federal Reserve’s eastern branch who is the Bank of New York.

The One West FSB claims or other successor’s claims are an award from the receiver for an interest in equity and not debt. Therefore, no matter how badly duped at signing and during the entire foreclosure process, a consumer household cannot be held obligated under a power of sale for liabilities that extend to an obligor and beyond the terms of his promise.

Therefore how do you intend to deliver to the alleged beneficiary this so called credit bid whereby we anticipate the grantee to be the foreclosing beneficiary? And is this purported washing of assets and liabilities into a power of sale intended to explain why the notice of sale is dated before the first and not recorded? This is also the reason, I assume, the date of the sale coincides with the existing life of loan upon the deeds seven year anniversary? 

Your office is triggering a taxable event caused by manipulated a reverse engineered sale and purchase back from the lender under a failed tax shelter scheme.   

Your comments and status or update for the coming sale are kindly requested. 

circumvent the wrongful sale

This is to inform you that the Notices of default delivered by your office for recording requested by First American Title Insurance Co. appear to have been prepared under some sort of dual tracking system.

The same notices state “when recorded mail to Law offices of Les Zieve 18377 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach California 92648”. The Notice is not an original docket number but a copy of the document recorded on August 03, 2012/ See instrument number 2012-0456045 for TS NO 12-19425 Loan Number 89807841 

Your notice is explicit in detail as it states by your office’s own admission No sale can be set until approximately  90 days’  from the date of this notice of default may be recorded (which date of recordation appears on this notice).

My office is handling the tax preparation for the calendar year-end for the trustor and herein for submission to a Certified Public Accountant. The concerns are for a 1099 your office will issue as the result of the notice your filing.  

Upon a closer investigation into your disclaimer it means to read that No Notice of sale can be set until approximately the date of the anniversary of the expiration of the mortgages bond holder account. The information is discovered from UCC filings, other County recorder information. Data obtained on file in other states and filing information for the private placement memorandums and pooling s and servicing agreements’ as well as other MBS and ABS information found electronically on-line.

By your own advisement, the foreclosing trustee is requesting the trustor contact a statutory trustee for assets in the jurisdiction of the state of New York. My efforts to affirm a mortgage deed of trust held on file by said trustee is in fact “gibberish” Your office is triggering a taxable event by way of dual tracking for obligations of another party being assigned pro rata to the trustor.

You need to review the title as well as an abstract is required and must be made available to confirm all liens of record. All other terms of the deed of trust appear to have been lifted from the lenders claims upon the registration of securities and formation of trust.

Your notice is created from a computer system tracking collateral used to form the depositor account. This deposit account was for a bond offering held to the Trustor’s contract for the date it was executed.  Hence, the notices could not be filed until the expiration of the Bond roll over term.

The release is the anniversary of the date the security was executed as shown below:You’re forcing a controlled sale against a consumer trustor who is entitled to a right for salvage and surety claims for subrogation. This is clearly a claim manufactured to commence the date of expiration of another contract. The purported sale was set for assets held by the indenture Trustee that was charged under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and further violates CA CC §2924 et seq. I have recommended the client seek counsel immediately to circumvent the wrongful sale of real property in order to wash assets.

We appreciate your assistance in uncovering the facts for which the collateral being foreclosed upon is not the title to the subject property


Accounting Specialist